Hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee - The Continued Importance of the Violence Against Women Act

Statement

Chaired By: Senator Patrick Leahy

Witnesses Panel I: Catherine Pierce, Acting Director, Office On Violence Against Women, Department Of Justice; Panel II: Gabrielle Union, Actor and Advocate; Karen Tronsgard-Scott, Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence; Ann Burke, RN, M.Ed., President and Founder, Lindsay Ann Burke Memorial Fund; Collene Campbell, National Chair, Force 100; Sally Wolfgang Wells, Chief Assistant, Office of The Maricopa County Attorney, Phoenix, Arizona

Copyright ©2009 by Federal News Service, Inc., Ste. 500, 1000 Vermont Ave, Washington, DC 20005 USA. Federal News Service is a private firm not affiliated with the federal government. No portion of this transcript may be copied, sold or retransmitted without the written authority of Federal News Service, Inc. Copyright is not claimed as to any part of the original work prepared by a United States government officer or employee as a part of that person's official duties. For information on subscribing to the FNS Internet Service at www.fednews.com, please email Carina Nyberg at cnyberg@fednews.com or call 1-202-216-2706.

SEN. LEAHY: Good morning. You know, since 1994 the Violence Against Women's Act, or VAWA, has been the centerpiece of the federal government's commitment to combating domestic violence and other violent crimes against women. Its passage and reauthorization were a signal achievement supporting the rights of women in America.

I'm glad to see Senator Kaufman from Delaware because his predecessor, who now has another job in government -- Joe Biden, was, of course, so instrumental in the passing of VAWA, and the landmark law filled a void in federal law that left too many victims of domestic and sexual violence without the help they needed. It's interesting it passed with very strong bipartisan support and I would complement Senator Biden -- then Senator Biden and Senator Orrin Hatch who were chairman and ranking member respectively who worked so hard at getting this passed.

I look forward to working with members of the committee and the Obama/Biden administration experts in the field to ensure the law remains a vital resource for prosecutors and law enforcement agencies, victim service providers, but most importantly the women and families who are threatened with violence. We have an extraordinary panel of witnesses. Of course, the first one is going to be Catherine Pierce who is -- and I'm glad to see you here, Ms. Pierce -- and she's the acting director of the Office of Violence Against Women at the Justice Department, and, of course, Karen Tronsgard-Scott, who I known for many years and was just talking with and the leader for ending domestic and sexual violence in Vermont. And I mention Karen because people think of Vermont like so many small rural (bucolic ?) states. We have a very low crime rate and everything else.

But we have domestic violence in every state -- every state, every situation. Sometimes in the -- in more rural areas it's more hidden because it's something people don't want to talk about. I know that. The witness will be sharing their personal stories with the committee.

One has gone on to become a successful actor. One has helped pass a Rhode Island state law requiring teen dating violence education in public schools, and one has become a passionate advocate for victims in California. I saw the devastating effects of domestic and sexual violence early in my career as a prosecutor -- Vermont state's attorney for Chittenden County.

And I know the violence and abuse reached in the homes of people from all (works ?) of life every day regardless of gender or race or culture, age, class, sexuality, or economic status. Domestic violence is a crime. We should never forget that. Domestic violence is a crime.

When I became a prosecutor people didn't prosecute it. I changed that. And now everybody knows you have to. It doesn't make any difference whether it's a family member or a current or past spouse, a boyfriend, girlfriend, acquaintance, or a stranger. It's a crime. It's a crime. It's a crime.

So (we made with ?) some remarkable progress in recognizing domestic violence and sexual assault and stalking and dating violence are crimes. Since the enactment of VAWA, the rates of non-fatal and fatal domestic violence have declined. More victims have felt confident to come forward to report these crimes. The states have passed more than 600 laws to help this and to fight this kind of crime.

We still have millions of women and men and children and families who are traumatized by abuse and know that one in four American women and one in seven men are victims of domestic violence. One in six women, one in 33 men are victims of sexual assault. One point four million individuals are stalked each year.

So we have to keep on with these programs. Two thousand eight census by the National Network to End Domestic Violence found in just one day more than 60,500 adults and children were served by local domestic violence programs. Almost 9,000 requests went unmet. Numbers like these are why I advocated for increased funding in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act for important VAWA programs. STOP -- Services-Training-Officers-Prosecutors -- formula grant program is one of these.

The inclusion of $175 million for STOP grants in recovery act was going to give -- is going to give resources to law enforcement agencies and prosecutors and courts and victim advocacy groups to improve victim safety. Also, $50 million for transitional housing assistance grant -- that's something I authored to provide safe havens. There's a lot more on this. I want to get on to the witnesses and I will put my full statement in the record but I'm -- the bill we have before us will make corrections and improvements so the law which has helped so many can continue to serve as a powerful tool to combat violence perpetuated against women and families.

We were able to pass this through committee in early May. I'm trying to get it passed now through the -- through the Senate. This has bipartisan support. I think every victim of domestic violence in this country will tell us how important this is. And with that, I'll yield to another former and distinguished prosecutor, Senator Sessions in Alabama.

SEN. JEFF SESSIONS (R-AL): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Ms. Pierce. We're delighted to have you here. I want to delay any long remarks. We look forward to hearing your testimony. We do spend a considerable sum of money. It has a very important mission.

Every dollar of it needs to be wisely and most effectively spent and I would want to discuss that because programs as they age sometimes become less vibrant and effective than they were when they initially started. So I'd like to talk about that. I would agree with the chairman (it's ?) been tremendous progress.

When I started as United States attorney, in 1981 I guess, I sensed then that local police departments, even small police departments, were coming far more attuned to the dangers that occur from ignoring domestic violence. Training programs have increased dramatically and most departments are far more sophisticated today than when this program originally passed, and that's all to the good. So let's talk about what good things have happened and what challenges we face and how to make sure that these programs are the most productive programs to reduce violence in America. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SEN. LEAHY: Thank you very much. Senator Kaufman, you wanted to say something?

SEN. EDWARD KAUFMAN (D-DE): I just wanted to say I can remember in 1990 when Senator Biden -- then Senator Biden, now Vice President Biden -- first started working on a violence against women act and I know what a lonely job it was getting started and it really is incredible. It's always been a great example to me of what you can do if you really put your mind (and do it ?) and you have a just cause, and he just picked up people as he -- as he went along and, clearly, I want to thank the chairman for picking up this -- picking this up and moving with it and carrying it even further and for his introducing (and then approving ?) assistance to violence against -- domestic violence act.

But, you know, a lot of things have happened since the act was passed, which are very promising. The -- domestic violence has dropped by 50 percent, incidents of rape are down by 60 percent, and the number of women killed by an abusive husband or boyfriend are down 22 percent. Really striking.

Today, more than half of all rape victims are stepping forward to report the crime, acts of bravery that often need the protection and encouragement VAWA's funding provides. But we still have a long way to go and that's why we're here today and this is what we have to talk about. We cannot afford to turn our backs on women and families in need of protection.

We need to pass the Improving Assistance for Domestic Violence Victims Act (sic) and reinvigorate funding for Violence Against Women Act programs today. So I just want to thank you for what you're doing. What you're doing is absolutely the most incredibly important thing that I see every day in the job that I do and I want to thank you all for -- (inaudible). Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SEN. LEAHY: Senator Klobuchar?

SEN. AMY KLOBUCHAR (D-MN): Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SEN. LEAHY: Again, another former prosecutor.

SEN. KLOBUCHAR: That's right. And I know somewhere Paul and Sheila Wellstone are looking down on us today. I think you know that this was their passion and some of it came from Paul's fighting for anyone that didn't get the best luck in life or was the most vulnerable, and Sheila really took this on in an amazing way.

I still remember her arriving in Washington with her kind of frizzy hair and eight years later or so she was just an amazing advocate for this nationally, and part of that advocacy actually came out of the work in Minnesota. The Hennepin County -- I was the Hennepin County prosecutor for eight years -- the head of that office -- and our domestic abuse center really was a model for the country -- a one-stop shop where there was a day care center and there was a place for police and prosecutors and restraining orders signed and everything instead of having to go through a bureaucratic maze of red tape which even lawyers couldn't figure out.

So this is something near and dear to my heart. I'm proud of the work we've done in Hennepin County and the work that's been nationally since VAWA passed and I'm looking forward to working on the reauthorization. So thank you very much.

SEN. LEAHY: Thank you. Our first witness, Catherine Pierce, is currently the acting director of the Department of Justice Office of (sic) Violence Against Women. Prior to her appointment as acting director, Ms. Pierce was the deputy director of the office in charge of public outreach and communications. She's responsible for launching the office of Sexual Assault Services Program and the Culturally and Linguistically Specific Services Program.

She originally joined the Office of Violence Against Women as one of the original staff members when the office opened in 1995. She also worked in an advisory role with the State Department on human trafficking issues -- another matter of enormous seriousness. Prior to her time in the department, she served as deputy at the State Justice Institute where she oversaw the development of judicial education and training initiatives. Bachelor's from the University of Massachusetts in Amherst. Please go ahead, Ms. Pierce, and thank you for being here.

MS. PIERCE: Thank you, Chairman Leahy, and Ranking Member Sessions and members of the committee for the opportunity to speak with you today. As you said, my name is Catherine Pierce and I am the acting director of the Department of Justice's Office on Violence Against Women. I am here to discuss both the remarkable progress made since the Violence Against Women Act was enacted almost 15 years ago and the challenges ahead.

I want to personally thank the chairman and committee staff for working so closely with the department on S. 327, the Improving Assistance to Domestic and Sexual Violence Victims of 2009.

This bill contains a number of much-needed amendments to improve VAWA's grant programs. Every day, VAWA funding makes a difference in how communities across America assess -- assist and protect victims. VAWA's 19 grant programs provide funding to states, local governments, tribal governments, and non-profit organizations to assist communities, encouraging them to develop innovative strategies to respond to violence against women.

We are grateful to Congress for reauthorizing VAWA in 2005 and expanding our ability to respond to all victims of violence against women including victims of sexual assault. We are pleased to report that this year for the first time OVW will make awards under the new Sexual Assault Services Program to support essential services provided by rape crisis centers throughout the nation. OVW has increased its efforts to respond to the serious crime of stalking.

In January of this year, the department released a special report which confirms what (the field ?) has long known. Stalking is pervasive, women are at higher risk of being stalked, and there is a dangerous intersection between stalking and more violent crimes. As the nation's understanding of domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking has increased so too has our awareness that these forms of violence affect all age groups and that violence within relationships often tragically begins during adolescence.

In addition, with the reauthorization of VAWA 2005, Congress directed OVW to take new steps to address the critical problem of violence against Indian women. The department appointed a deputy director for tribal affairs for OVW, established a federal advisory committee to provide recommendations on a program of research, and instituted annual tribal consultations to learn how the department can improve its response to these crimes. While we are rightly proud of our accomplishments, we recognize that there is still much to do.

Looking forward, the office will focus on a number of areas where greater effort is needed. For example, over the years we have learned that law enforcement officers, prosecutors, and judges alike work with victim advocates to use their distinct roles to create coordinated community responses to violence against women. While this approach has been important to our efforts, we recognize that we cannot rely solely on the criminal justice system to end violence against women and that to be effective local responses must be informed by the voices and experiences of survivors and also diverse representatives of the community.

While VAWA has made a tremendous difference in the lives of many, we recognize that we have also left many women behind, particularly women of color. In the months and years to come, we will engage in efforts that place accountability for the safety of women and girls on the community as a whole. I am constantly inspired by the extraordinary commitment of the women and men who've devoted their lives to ending violence against women.

But our lives have most been changed by survivors, women like Gabrielle Union and Ann Burke who have experienced the unthinkable and who have the courage to tell their stories to advocate for change. I was compelled to commit my life to this work over 15 years ago when I read the story of Kristin Lardner. Like one of my own daughters, Kristin was an art student with her entire life ahead of her. She was dating a man who became abusive, she broke up with him after he seriously beat her, and even then tried to help him get counseling.

His response was to threaten and stalk her. Kristin successfully obtained a protection order against him but he did not comply, came to her workplace, and insisted that she continue to see him. When she refused, he shot her in the head and then returned a few minutes later to shoot her twice more.

He went back to his own apartment and committed suicide. The man who murdered Kristin had a three-page arrest record, was convicted of multiple offenses, was the subject of multiple restraining orders, and was on probation for repeatedly assaulting and abusing women. At the time of Kristin's murder, he had violated the terms of his probation in another jurisdiction and should well have been in jail. I learned about Kristin because her father, George Lardner, a reporter, investigated his own -- his own daughter's death and wrote a series of articles which won him the Pulitzer Prize.

While this story changed my life and perhaps many others, it didn't bring Kristin back. Every day stories about similar homicides, rape, domestic violence, and stalking remain in our headlines. This is unacceptable. We have much, much more to do. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Sessions, and members of the committee for your commitment -- your ongoing commitment -- to this issue and your time this morning. I would be very happy to answer your questions.

SEN. LEAHY: Thank you. And thank you for mentioning George Lardner's writing on that. I remember being gripped by that and wondering, one, it was very important he wrote it, but I can only imagine how difficult that must be for a parent to write something like that. I have three children of my own and now grandchildren. I can only imagine how that must tear one apart. We have a serious economic crisis in this country, Ms. Pierce. Has that affected or increased or decreased or in any way affected the need for the services that we have in VAWA?

MS. PIERCE: I think it has but I think I'd like to state sort of unequivocally that unemployment is one of many factors that in combination can lead to an escalation in violence. We know from the research that Dr. Jacquelyn Campbell has done that there are other things that happen in combination with unemployment -- an abuser's threat to kill her or her children -- a woman or her children -- or to harm them, threats to commit suicide, forced sex, and most importantly, the presence of a gun.

So these are additional factors that we always need to look for and that unemployment alone really is not the cause. I think I should also state that we know that shelters help women avoid that kind of abuse during situations where their partner or their husband may be unemployed. But also what's helpful is when judges know that they should issue a protection order and when guns should be removed from the home.

SEN. LEAHY: We -- we put extra money in the recovery act for VAWA. Has that money started going out yet? Is it having any effect?

MS. PIERCE: I'm glad you asked that question.

SEN. LEAHY: I thought you might be.

MS. PIERCE: (Laughter.) We have announced 46 formula awards to the states totaling more than $120 million -- those awards have been made -- and this week 29 state coalition awards totaling more than $2.5 million have been made. We are also before -- some time around the middle of July we will have made awards through our transitional housing program.

We received 567 applications for recovery act transitional housing relief and we will be able to really support only about 20 percent of those. So there is a tremendous clear -- tremendous need. Similarly, we received 91 applications from tribal governments and will only be able to fund about a third of those.

SEN. LEAHY: I -- you know, times change. I was mentioning to others earlier when I was a prosecutor we didn't have any of these programs and we had to kind of make them up as we went along and fortunately had a lot of very dedicated people who contributed everything from housing (on through ?) -- like my -- on occasion my wife and I would provide that.

But we have done a lot more than did decades ago. Are their needs currently unmet for victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, the dating violence, stalking? Are there things that we should be doing or things we could be doing at the federal government? Obviously, the state governments have their own programs but are there things that we should be doing?

MS. PIERCE: I think we really do need to enhance our response to sexual assault services and we will be doing -- be looking very specifically at the need for enhanced sexual assault services in rural America, in particular. We're very concerned about custody issues in domestic violence cases and we'll be looking very closely at why women are losing custody of their children either to the courts or through the states to the child protection system.

We're also going to be looking very closely at the problem of children exposed to violence, and we know that when -- the children are safer when their mothers are safer and that that safety is inextricably linked. The other thing that as I alluded to in my testimony that is of great concern to us is that we begin to focus our efforts on homicide prevention more so than we ever have before, and that we use research to inform our practice and we use practice to inform our research.

SEN. LEAHY: The -- and I don't mean this as an either/or thing by any means but thank you for mentioning rural areas because, again, it's sometimes neglected (and needs to be ?) -- you also mentioned tribal issues has been a concern -- about the lack of communication between U.S. attorneys' offices and Indian tribes regarding (declinations of ?) -- when the U.S. Treasury decides not to bring charges.

The -- can anything be done about that? Because I mean, some of these -- we don't have that situation in my state of Vermont. I've talked to a number of the Western senators, both parties, who are concerned about it. Is there some way that we can get more timely information to tribal officials when they decline prosecutions?

MS. PIERCE: Well, our office is responsible for providing direct funding to tribal governments and to tribal coalitions. Our mission is to make sure that we are providing victim services to Alaska native villages and to different tribes in Indian country, and so I would have to say that the mission of our office is not related to the prosecution of those crimes within -- with U.S. attorneys.

SEN. LEAHY: But would you suggest that there is some way of getting better? Do we need better communication?

MS. PIERCE: Well, I was about to say -- I mean, there is always -- there is always room for better communication and better coordination within the department and across federal agencies, and we're very committed to enhancing -- (inaudible) -- as well.

SEN. LEAHY: I may make a few suggestions that -- to the attorney general and others to make sure that that's done. Senator Sessions?

SEN. SESSIONS: Well, thank you. You asked Mr. Chairman -- began a discussion, I think, about what our new challenges are, what our studies are showing, and how we can get that information out to local law enforcement. I remember our former colleague, Fred Thompson, used to say the most valuable thing the Department of Justice can do is to do the good research that helps individual police departments and prosecutorial offices make the right decisions, and you mentioned some of the studies that you have ongoing.

Are you satisfied that the VAWA office and Department of Justice programs are identifying in a very practical way the kind of protocols and procedures that would be most effective for a law enforcement agency of a mid-sized city -- let's say a police department -- that they are getting the kind of guidance that helps them establish the very best protocols for success?

MS. PIERCE: Well, thank you for asking that. I think -- yes, the answer is yes. With the help of some national law enforcement organizations we have been able to develop what I think are clear protocol and practices, and you should be aware that we are also going to be updating what we are -- what we call a manual on promising practices. We'll be looking at law enforcement, and I think the thing to -- for us to remember is that we -- you know, since the VAWA was passed we have a whole new generation of police officers and prosecutors who need to be educated on those very promising practices and protocol that you've mentioned, and we don't need to go back and reinvent the wheel. We have done some significant work in that area and what we need to do is just -- is to continue to educate.

SEN. SESSIONS: Well, yeah, that story about Kristin, and that's such a powerful story.

MS. PIERCE: Yeah.

SEN. SESSIONS: I guess my question is could that stalker have been identified earlier? Could we have -- do we have any kind of identifying characteristics that say this is an abusive person but this was an abusive person who could become homicidal and dangerous? Do -- and are we -- do the average prosecutor and judge and police department -- do they know what these are and are they making the right identifications of who need -- of the most dangerous people?

MS. PIERCE: Again, thank you for raising that. I think we do have those indicators. I think we have that knowledge. I mentioned some of what those indicators were and in the -- in the case of Kristin Lardner I think a lot of those indicators were present. She did everything right.

SEN. SESSIONS: What are some of -- that's right. She did things right.

MS. PIERCE: Well, in her case, I mean, she went to get a protective order --

SEN. SESSIONS: Sought a protective order and got it.

MS. PIERCE: -- but the problem was that, as I understand it, she got a protection order in Boston and he had been arrested in other jurisdictions and across state lines in New York. And so we need, obviously, databases that speak to one another and it would be great if every judge were able to pull up that information while on the bench, and that is something that we need to continue to do.

But in lieu of that I think that our judicial institutes that we support, the Leadership Institute for Chiefs of Police (sic) that we support and the Prosecutors Resource Center that we support are ways of getting that information out. We have the information and we need to get it in the hands of local practitioners.

SEN. SESSIONS: I really think that's true but just because you do a study and issue a report in Washington does not mean that a busy prosecutor or a busy judge has that -- had the opportunity to study it, and I don't know how we -- and I assume there's some disputes about what the best protocols are on various type circumstances. But I would assume there's some areas in which there's virtually uniformity of agreement that under these circumstances this represents a real danger and strong action should be taken. Would you agree?

MS. PIERCE: I entirely agree with you, and again, I think it's our responsibility to reach out.

SEN. SESSIONS: Have you thought about how to get that -- make sure that that information is more widely spread? Do we have effective enough programs to get that information out?

MS. PIERCE: I think we do. I think we need to continually reach out to prosecutor coordinators and to -- and to, you know, national associations that can provide us with lists of prosecutors who we can go to and say, please, we need -- we have this training -- we're making it available with VAWA funding. And actually, I think we've been quite successful in doing that. But we can always do better and we continue to try to enhance, as you said, those databases of judges, prosecutors, and law enforcement officers in every state. And I have to say we have created as a result of that -- those educational programs dedicated units like in Minneapolis and St. Paul and other parts of the country.

SEN. SESSIONS: (Inaudible) -- virtually every community has a more specialized unit so Penelope Houses, protective houses for women and children who've been abused and that. I'm real pleased by that but I just -- I just would say continue the good research, continue to get the information out so it can be utilized, and we'll have fewer of these cases like Kristin.

It's my personal view that a lot of individuals unfortunately are very dangerous and the number of people who would actually kill somebody or stalk somebody consistently or sexually assault somebody is not that large in this country. If they're properly identified some of them need to be detained and locked up for the offenses they commit and that will perhaps prevent offenses in the future. So I thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SEN. LEAHY: Thank you very much, Senator Sessions. And Senator Klobuchar?

SEN. KLOBUCHAR: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Pierce, I always thought that one of the real beauties of VAWA is how it tried to encourage community-based responses and getting groups involved, and the way I see this I'll just tell our own experience of how this worked with -- we actually got our hospital involved so that we had victim witness advocates accessible to people when things were discovered; they were part of the community response.

We actually started a post-review process for cases where the thought was something might have gone bad, or maybe something didn't go bad -- kind of like they do when in surgery, after a hospital looks at all their errors to figure out what went wrong -- and we did it not publically, but we got all the partners together to figure out what went wrong and sometimes they were little things of some police department not answering a phone call or someone not checking a kind of computer system. We were able to do a better job because we did those reviews.

Do you want to talk a little bit about that coordinated community of response; how you think it could be improved and how it has contributed to the value of VAWA?

MS. PEIRCE: Definitely.

Also, let me say I did visit your office, saw what an extraordinary job you all were doing several years ago and continue to do, so I thank you for that.

As I alluded to in my comments, I think that coordinated community responses will only be strengthened when we begin to turn to the communities; particularly the diverse communities, who we are charged with responding to. I think that we have not done a good enough job of listening to the voices of survivors, but --

You alluded to something which I think is very -- has been an extraordinary and excellent tool, which is the safety audits that were developed by one of our grantees. It's a tool that can be used to pull a coordinated community response together by looking at cases and figuring our where women fall through the cracks and who could have done a better job; without blaming or shaming or pointing the finger.

To me, that has been one of the most useful tools that we've had, but I think it is -- the other issue is I think, for prosecutors, judges and law enforcement officers to work with advocates in balance and to listen to advocates and survivors. I can't underscore it enough.

SEN. KLOBUCHAR: One of the things I know is always frustrating for some of our prosecutors and the victims was just the enforcement of protection orders across jurisdictional boundaries.

I know that you've been looking into that; part of your testimony was about that. could you talk about what you think we could do better with that?

MS. PEIRCE: Well, I think, as I said earlier, if we could begin to develop databases that were more reliable for prosecutors, for judges, for law enforcement; I think that would make an enormous difference.

SEN. KLOBUCHAR: Another thing that -- just looking at my list of things that if my victim advocates were here they would want to ask, was just the rape kits -- I believe that the Violence Against Women Act prohibits grantee jurisdictions from charging victims of sexual assault for the cost of collecting and processing their rape kits.

There are many jurisdictions, however, where the victim still ends up paying the price; either because the state doesn't compensate the victims for the full cost of the kit or because victims are expected to pay the cost themselves and have states reimburse them after the fact.

Should we be taking more steps up front to ensure that no one has to pay for the rape kits?

MS. PIERCE: Absolutely, unequivocally.

SEN. : I would have been upset if you had answered that another way.

(Laughter)

SEN. KLOBUCHAR: This is not -- I'm not making this up at all.

It happens all the time and in our state, there were proposals to do this, so I know that it happens all the time. I think people would be surprised if they knew the facts.

Last year, it was discovered that Los Angeles County has the largest backlog of untested rape kits of any jurisdiction in the country; almost 13,000 untested kits as of last summer. Even if LA County is the worst offender, its really a national problem. The National Institute of Justice at one point estimated that there were approximately 400,000 untested kits nationwide.

As we look at this reauthorization, is it something we should be looking at as well?

MS. PEIRCE: Yes, and I think that we need to be looking at ways that our office can coordinate more effectively with other parts of the department to make sure that this backlog gets addressed across the country.

SEN. KLOBUCHAR: Thank you very much; we appreciate your work.

SEN. LEAHY: Thank you very much.

Did you have a follow up question you wanted to ask?

SEN. : Just one, if I could.

What do you think about the requirement in 2005 -- Congress created a funding incentive to cause states to test rapist, the perpetrators, for HIV within 48 hours, I believe, after arrest. Is that being effectively done; do you think that's a good policy that every state should test sexual perpetrators for HIV?

MS. PEIRCE: Well, we definitely believe that women who've been exposed to HIV certainly have the right to request that the offender be tested, but as we all know -- those of us who have worked in the criminal justice system for years -- it isn't always so that the offender is apprehended within 48 hours or so.

What we're focused on, is being able to provide the victim with the alternative to receive counseling about prophylactics herself. Our focus is on her and what we have learned is that about 84 percent of state and local governments who receive funding through the grant program that you're referring to -- the grants to encourage arrest programs -- are unable to meet that requirement.

So, what we want to do is to --

SEN. : Why are they unable?

MS. PEIRCE: It could be any number of reasons, but not the least of which is that the offender is not always available within that period of time.

SEN. : Well that's obvious; they can't do anything on arresting, but for those who are arrested I don't know why that wouldn't be just a standard protocol --

MS. PEIRCE: It's about giving the offender -- excuse me -- its about giving the victim an alternative.

We need to have -- yes we need to do -- we need to test them as we can --

SEN. : What hesitation do you have about that every department should test a rapist for HIV?

MS. PEIRCE: I don't.

SEN. : Okay, well lets -- we got a law that says it; you're changing the subject on me.

I just don't understand what the hesitation --

MS. PEIRCE: No, no, no; I'm just saying that victims, with where that offender is not available, we need to give the victim -- we need to put our focus on the victim and provide an alternative for her.

SEN. : Thank you.

SEN. LEAHY: Thank you.

Senator Klobuchar, did you have any follow up?

Thank you very much, Ms. Peirce; thank you for being here and thank you for the emphasis that you put on this.

MS. PEIRCE: Thank you very much.

Thank you for all of your work; I appreciate it so much.

SEN. LEAHY: We're in this one together.

We'll call up the other --

Thank you all for being here.

We're going to start with Gabrielle Union; an accomplished actress, made frequent appearances on television, more than 20 films. When she's not acting, she serves as Ambassador for the Susan G. Coleman for the Cure Organization supporting breast cancer research. My wife and I have been on the -- not the run, but the past walk, a number of (times ?) for the cure.

She's an advocate for victims of sexual assault; she's a graduate of UCLA where she received a bachelors in sociology.

Ms. Union, please go ahead.

MS. UNION: (off mike) say the words, "Sexual Assault".

All together now -- (together) sexual assault.

It's a little crazy that sometimes if we -- we can't even say the words we can't effectively begin to deal with the problem.

A brief back story -- at 19 years old, I got a summer time job, like a lot of us, and while I was at work one night a man came into the store, robbed the store and during the course of the robbery, decided to rape me. During the course of the rape, he very calmly put the gun down that he had been holding to my head and said, "Do you mind handing me the gun?"

At that point, I did my best Starsky and Hutch; I fell on my back, I popped the clip in and I tried to kill him. I missed and we began to tussle; he beat me beyond recognition.

Luckily enough, I was -- and I hate to say this; it really makes me sick to have to say that I had the privilege of being raped in a wealthy community. The police arrived within minutes; it was a police department that was adequately funded and staffed. They immediately took my statement, they were well trained. We immediately went to the rape crisis center where they took my rape kits and I was able to start the path from rape victim to rape survivor.

I cannot say enough about the difference it made that I was raped in a wealthy community. It was an adequately funded and staffed rape crisis center. I immediately began to get the treatment that I needed.

Within days, my rape kits was tested and analyzed and within a few days after that, my rapist was apprehended and within a few months, he took a plea and I had my justice.

It's rare; it does not happen and I just cannot say enough about the need for adequately funded and staffed rape crisis centers throughout the United States. I work very closely with law enforcement and what they always say is "We don't have the time or the resources to help get a rape victim between victim and survivor."

Rape victims, they say, make terrible witnesses. Rape survivors, are amazing and effective to help us get rapist off the street. So, if you kind of want to bottom-line it, having adequately funded rape crisis centers helps get rapists off the streets.

I have to reiterate that rapist don't go away at the end of the day to Rape Land where we'd like to think they go. They live next door to us; they are raping our mothers, our sisters, our daughters, our grandparents. They don't magically disappear. We have to help police and law enforcement get them off the streets, we have to be advocates for the victims to help them become survivors and lead happy, productive lives, and it starts with adequate funding.

To tell a brief story, I was in Africa and I was sitting at the bar, and there was an image of Paris Hilton and her little dog that came on TV. It got the bar all riled up and they started telling these jokes; this man said "Silly Americans, you care more about your pets than you do about your people. They'll spend tons of money to put a man away for abusing a dog, but they don't care if you beat your wife. So, if you're ever in America, when in doubt, beat your wife and not your dog; you won't go to jail."

I just want to say, we have to make human beings a priority. We have to make our women and our children a priority and keeping them safe a priority and it starts with adequately funding these programs with domestic violence programs and sexual assault programs. It has become a sad reality that when I go to third world countries to speak to women and give them the "just hang in there" speech, I have found that I have to give the exact same speech to women in American.

In third world countries, we don't have an expectation of criminal justice; there is no justice in those countries, there's no chance for therapy and hand-holding. I'm finding that I have to give this same exact speech to girls and women in America. We're supposed to be better than that, and we're not; we have to do better.

Thank you.

SEN. LEAHY: Thank you.

Karen Tronsgard-Scott has been the director of the Vermont Network Against Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault since 2007 (and been to my office ?) and I have worked with her a lot during that time. Before she came to Vermont, she worked in various victim services in Ohio for 15 years. She has a bachelors degree from Bowling Green State University, a masters degree from Ohio University, currently lives in Hinesburg, Vt. where the head of my Vermont office lives. The Vermont network that she leads is a member of Coalition and National Network to End Domestic Violence.

I'd like to thank President Sue Elles (ph) and members of the board and staff who work tirelessly on behalf of everybody here and please, when you go back, give my thanks and I think it would be fair to say give them (Marcel's ?) thanks too.

Go ahead.

MS. TRONSGARD-SCOTT: Chairman Leahy, Ranking Member Sessions and distinguished members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to discuss the success of the Violence Against Women Act, VAWA, and the importance of reauthorizing in 2011.

The Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence is a statewide coalition of domestic and sexual violence programs. Our 15 member programs are located throughout the state and provide lifesaving services to victims and their families. VAWA funded programs are a critical part of our work in Vermont, and across the country. I am here today to discuss the success of VAWA programs, and the need to sustain and strengthen VAWA with its upcoming reauthorization in 2011.

The crime of domestic violence is pervasive and life-threatening. In total, one in four women will experience domestic violence in her lifetime. One in six women and one in 33 men have experienced an attempted or completed rape. In 2007 in Vermont, there were over 1,200 victims of sexual violence. Of course, the most heinous of these crimes is murder. In 2005 alone, 1,181 women were murdered by an intimate partner in the United States and approximately 1/3 of all female murder victims are killed by an intimate partner. In Vermont, there were seven domestic violence related homicides and an additional three domestic violence related suicides in just one week in 2007.

Additionally, the cycle of intergenerational violence is perpetuated as children witness violence. Approximately 15.5 million children are exposed to domestic violence every year. In addition to the terrible cost domestic and sexual violence have on the lives of individual victims and their families, these crimes cost taxpayers and communities. However, in addition to saving and rebuilding lives, VAWA saved taxpayers $14.8 billion in net averted social costs in its first six years alone. VAWA was not only the right thing to do; it was also fiscally sound legislation.

VAWA has unquestionably improved the national response to domestic violence. Since VAWA passed in 1994, states have passed more than 660 laws to combat domestic violence, sexual assault and stalking. The rate of non-fatal intimate partner violence against women has decreased by 63 percent. Remarkably, the number of individuals killed by an intimate partner has decreased by 24 percent for women and 48 percent for men.

My written testimony details the impact of VAWA grants, including transitional housing grants, legal assistance to victims' grants, grants to encourage arrest and enforce protection orders. Each of these grant funds have created systems through which adults and children can find paths to safer peace filled lives.

But, in my 15 years working to end violence against women, I've had a first-hand view of the impact of VAWA and I'd like to highlight three VAWA programs.

Through STOP grants program, VAWA has helped to educate an entire generation of law enforcement officers, prosecutors and judges about violence against women. STOP grants help state, local and tribal governments to strengthen effective law enforcement and prosecution strategies and to develop and strengthen victim services in cases involving violent crimes against women. I can personally attest to the results of a study performed by the Urban Institute, which said STOP grants have ensured that victims are safer, better supported by their communities and treated more uniformly and sensitively by first response workers.

VAWA Rural Grants allow jurisdictions to develop and implement programs that address the specific barriers faced by victims in rural areas.

In Vermont, our statewide rural grant program has created an innovative, specialized domestic violence unit within the Department for Children and Families, which now reviews 100 percent of intake child abuse and neglect cases where domestic violence may be present, ensuring that children and the non-offending parents get the supports they need.

For the first time in fiscal year 2008, the sexual assault victims' services program, or SASP, was funded and will begin to meet the extreme need of victims of sexual assault. This formula grant will allow states, tribes and territories to provide much needed direct services to victims and training and technical assistance to various organizations including law enforcement, courts and social services. Rape crisis centers supported by SASP funding provide medical, legal and psychological support to victims of rape and sexual assault.

The continuation and expansion of these funds is critical to the creation of services and collaborative relationships that will result in safer communities.

Due to the overwhelming success of VAWA funded programs, more and more victims are coming forward for help each year. However, this rising demand for services, without a concurrent increase in funding, means that many desperate victims are turned away from life-saving services.

Mr. Chairman, you noted that in just one day, nearly 9,000 requests for services went unmet across the country due to a lack of resources. Services for sexual assault victims are even more scarce and underfunded, with only 1,315 rape crisis centers nationwide. Women, children and men are actually on waiting lists to receive treatment and therapy after a sexual assault.

The Violence Against Women Act is working, but the job is not done. Although VAWA has done much to create systems that help victims and survivors, so much more is needed. We must strengthen VAWA so it can work for all victims of domestic and sexual violence, whether they live in rural or urban areas, whether they are children or elderly victims, whether they speak English or another language; every victim deserves the chance to live a peace filled life.

Congress has a unique opportunity to make a difference in the lives of so many by reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act with key and strategic improvements.

Thank you Chairman Leahy, Ranking Member Sessions and the distinguished members of the committee, for all you have done and all you will do, to help victims of domestic violence and sexual assault.

SEN. LEAHY: Thank you very much.

Ann Burke is our next witness. I think, Senator Whitehouse, you wanted to say something about Ms. Burke. Of course, having been married to a registered nurse for 47 years, I'm glad to have you here, although I'm sorry for the reason you are here.

SEN. WHITEHOUSE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just want to welcome Ms. Burke here as a fellow Rhode Islander. Rhode Island is a small state and I don't think there was a person in the state who was not aware of the tragedy that befell her family and the terrible in which her life changed when Lindsey was murdered by an ex-boyfriend at the age of 23.

We have also been very inspired by the way that Ann, as a teacher and nurse, has taken what for many would be a disabling calamity in their life, and turned it for as much good as one could possibly imagine could be achieved out of such tragedy. She has fought for, along with her husband Chris, and obtained passage through the Rhode Island legislature of the Lindsey Ann Burke Act, which requires programs in high schools to support awareness of teen dating violence and support in the schools for those programs.

She started the Lindsey Ann Burke Memorial Fund to provide support for those efforts and she has cofounded a group called MADE, Moms and Dads for Education, to stop teen dating abuse, which is a parent support network for parents across the country to support healthy teen dating relationships and cope with the tragedies that still take place.

She's somebody Rhode Island is very proud of; we've shared with her, as much as the public can, such a deeply private tragedy and we've seen what wonderful success she's drawn from that tragedy. She's an inspiration to many of us and I welcome her here today.

SEN. LEAHY: Thank you.

Ms. Burke, please go ahead.

MS. BURKE: Chairman Leahy, Ranking Member Sessions and distinguished members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today on the importance of creating awareness on the issue of dating abuse and prevention education efforts. I appreciate the opportunity to share my daughter, Lindsay's story and the positive legacy that has come from her loss.

My husband Chris is here today, and as Senator Whitehouse mentioned we are members of MADE (Moms and Dads for Education to stop dating abuse), a group that we co-founded along with Liz Claiborne. We advocate nationally that all middle and high schools teach a dating violence curriculum.

Today, I would like to tell you the story about my lovely daughter, Lindsay, she could easily be described as "the girl next door." She grew up on a small street in the suburbs, knowing the neighbors, playing with all the children in the neighborhood.

She had plenty of friends, took dance lessons, piano lessons, played soccer, tennis, graduated from St. Mary's Academy and Rhode Island College with a degree in elementary and secondary education. Her many friends would often describe her as having a sweet and compassionate nature.

My daughter met her killer by chance at a wedding. In this two year relationship, her father and I noticed things in her that didn't seem quite right, including a change in her personality but we didn't know the cause at first. As the police would later describe, it was a classic case of abuse and that every form of abuse, verbal, emotional, sexual, and physical was used.

Let's not overlook the strong correlation between stalking and intimate partner violence -- intimate partner murder, excuse me. Until after Lindsay's death, I did not know that 76 percent of women murdered by an intimate partner had been stalked by that intimate partner, but only about half of stalking victims recognized the crime for what it was. Lindsay was no exception.

After Lindsay left the boyfriend for the third time and was living with my son and his wife, she got calls constantly from him, according to cell phone records, more than 20 hours a week worth of calls. She was fearful and anxious. Earlier, he had threatened to kill her.

She had the support of friends and family. Yet, after leaving him and trying to start a new life, Lindsay's life ended almost four and a half -- three and a half -- I'm sorry, almost four years ago, when she was only 23 years old. The police statements and autopsy showed that she was brutally tortured and murdered by her ex- boyfriend.

As Rhode Island Attorney General Patrick C. Lynch said after the sentencing, "I am hopeful that Lindsay's death will provide lessons for our teenagers that will prevent others from being victimized by dating violence. "

After Lindsay's murder, I spent many painful months researching this topic. Given the alarming statistics for dating violence, I began to wonder why we don't require educators to teach our children about the importance of healthy relationships and prevention of dating and domestic violence.

Over and over I asked myself, "If Lindsay was properly educated about this major health issue in health class, would she still be alive today?" I believe she would. I never learned about it while pursuing my degrees in nursing, secondary education, or my graduate degree in health education.

As a result, in my 24 years of being a school nurse and health teacher in a middle school, I never addressed it with my students. I have since learned that my lack of education on this topic is more the norm in our country rather than the exception.

As a teacher, I realized we have school policies for bullying and sexual harassment, and we teach our students and our staff about these issues. I strongly believed that the same needed to be done for dating violence.

I believe that if my daughter was taught about dating violence from middle through high school and if we as parents knew all the facts as well and reinforced this information at home, she would still be with us.

Having known Lindsay, a confident and assertive young lady who always spoke her mind, who didn't hesitate to change friends in high school when some of them started drinking alcohol, who didn't hesitate to seek help from her guidance counselor when needed, and from the school principal when she thought something unfair was occurring, wouldn't she have been more careful about a safety plan and seeking proper help if she had heard about all of this before and had some frame of reference in her mind from prior learning?

Knowing my daughter, I believe she would have been. And now we will never know for sure.

How many more daughters have to lose their lives at the hands of an abusive partner? How many more teens have to suffer in an abusive relationship, fearing for their lives, and yet afraid to tell anyone?

The teen dating violence statistics are alarming. Teen dating violence is a major health problem that leads to other health problems: substance abuse, eating disorders, depression, suicide.

Recent research has found a strong connection between violence among young people and poor reproductive health outcomes. A study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that one in three U.S. high school girls who has been abused by a boyfriend has become pregnant. By reducing dating violence, we can reduce unintended teen pregnancies.

The psychological effects on its victims are also devastating. Devastation I know all too well. Dating violence, the same as domestic violence, destroys and kills people. How can we ignore this major health problem any longer?

In 2006, my family founded the Lindsay Ann Burke Memorial Fund to address dating violence primarily through education. Through our workshops, we have trained 224 health teachers from 89 schools in Rhode Island.

We have donated over $40,000 worth of curriculum to these schools, and through our workshops for general school staff we have trained well over 1,000 teachers so far. More recently, Rhode Island legislators showed foresight and took a stand by passing the Lindsay Ann Burke Act with the support of Attorney General Patrick Lynch.

Rhode Island now mandates annual dating violence education for students in grades 7 - 12 through our comprehensive health education curriculum, training in this topic for school staff in middle and high schools, a school district policy to address episodes of dating violence at school and at school events, and the law strongly recommends parent training.

Episodes of dating violence at school in Rhode Island will no longer be ignored. Teens, school staff, and parents will now get the education on this topic that they rightfully deserve.

An interesting thing happens when you educate all three groups, teens, school staff, and parents at the same time. Everyone begins to talk openly about this topic, removing the shame and stigma that now exists.

This helps teen victims to come forward and seek help; it gives the teens knowledge and skills to help each other; and it helps parents to reinforce this information at home with their teens and watch for signs of unhealthy relationships. And abusers, once educated, may think twice about their own behavior and seek ways to change.

Since passage of the Lindsay Ann Burke Act in Rhode Island, we have gotten support from both the National Association of Attorneys General and the National Foundation for Women Legislators. They have partnered with us in our effort to support Lindsay's law and to pass dating violence education in all states.

As a result of their efforts, several states have passed laws, with bills pending in other states. However, I want to point out that some have been watered down due to lack of funding for implementation.

Funding and leadership from the federal level is needed for comprehensive dating violence education for all teens. The last VAWA bill created the STEP program (Supporting Teens through Education and Protection Act) that would support training in schools, but it has never received funding.

This funding is exactly what states and school districts need to implement dating violence education laws. And this is more critical in light of a survey released this morning by the Family Violence Prevention Fund and Liz Claiborne that says American teens are experiencing alarmingly high levels of abuse in their dating relationships.

At the same time, the survey found parents are out of touch with the level of teen dating violence and abuse among their teens. The large majority of abused teens are not informing their parents, and even when they do, most stay in abusive relationships.

This highlights the need to start funding for STEP. To do anything less, is selling our children short.

SEN. LEAHY: Thank you.

MS. BURKE: We should not delay.

SEN. LEAHY: Thank you very much. Our next witness is Collene Campbell, she's the current National Chair of Force 100, and sitting member of the National Institute of Corrections Advisory Board. She formerly served as mayor of the City of San Juan Capistrano, California. She has endured tragedy several times in her life -- the murder of her son, the murder of her brother. Her experiences have made her a leading, widely respected victims' rights advocate nationwide.

Ms. Campbell, thank you. I know this is not an easy thing, but I appreciate you being here.

MS. CAMPBELL: Thank you. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman (moves mic closer) Mr. Chairman --

SEN. LEAHY: Thank you.

MS. CAMPBELL: And senators. Thank you for the opportunity to allow me to address you today.

You're right. It isn't easy, but it's worth it, if it helps. The Violence Against Women Act has been a very important addition to help strengthen our nation's ability to assist women, the victims of terrible sexual acts and physical violence. However, that act standing alone does not provide enough necessary means to address the crimes and their victims. Facing reality, our criminal justice system lacks due process and basic common sense.

We certainly acknowledge resources alone are not sufficient to bring true justice, but they help. There are huge issues in our justice system that have and will continue to affect hundreds and thousands of families, just like mine. The sad truth is, my family members don't (crying) --

SEN. LEAHY: That's all right. You take --

MS. CAMPBELL: May have their lives today if our justice system worked like it was intended to, like we planned for it to, like it should. But instead, sadly, in our home, our only son, brother and sister-in-law, are all dead, all murdered.

SEN. LEAHY: Take your time.

MS. CAMPBELL: To adequately judge its importance for our nation's decision makers -- God dang it, this makes me so mad because I'm such a tough old broad, and it makes me so mad because when I want to be really tough, I'm not, and I know my husband's watching and that really ticks me off. (Laughter)

SEN. LEAHY: Ms. Campbell, let me tell you, you're being as effective a witness as I've seen in 35 years. Don't let it bother you a bit.

MS. CAMPBELL: God bless you. Thank you, sir. But to adequately judge what's going on is important for you, our national decision makers to try and personally, personally identify with the tragedy of this crime and the truth and reality of what victims are forced to endure. It really stinks.

You have taken on the huge responsibility of the most important job in our nation, the safety of our citizens. And it's critical to the American people that you fully understand the truth and what's going on. We must have predictable sentencing and keep dangerous criminals behind bars. It's critical to have rapid access to DNA to save lives and save precious time for law enforcement, and our crowded courts. It is also important to have victims present and heard at all proceedings.

They know too much to keep them out of the courtroom. I realize it is more than important, and it is impossible in just a few moments to bring to you the real world of being a victim of crime. It's not a great thing and, by gosh, we've got to stop it. For a quarter of a century, without a break, my family has been through living hell. The hell was furnished first hand by the killers, the criminals, who should have remained in prison. Then more hell was distributed by the justice system.

If our justice system had worked properly, along with many others, my murdered family would be alive today. In 1982, our only son, Scott, just disappeared from the face of the earth. We frantically looked for him for 11 months. Two parolees had stolen an expensive sports car and decided, if both the car and our son were missing, they would never get caught. The killer's statement to the undercover agent was, "We took him for an airplane ride, strangled him and threw him to the Pacific Ocean, where the sharks would eat him and he wouldn't be found."

Senators, one of the killers had been given three indeterminate life sentences and was released in only four years. The other killer was out on work furlough after killing somebody else. You see, both of these criminals had been given another chance. They were given their chance. But senators, we never have another chance to see our son.

But we're still going through the eight years of our son's murder trial. While we were excluded from the courtroom, my only sibling, auto racing legend, Mickey Thompson and his wife Trudy, were also murdered. It took another 19 years to get those killers convicted. From the very beginning, I was certain who had killed Mickey and Trudy, and naturally there were attempts on my life, so they wouldn't be brought to justice.

However, let me tell you, senators, I'm the proud daughter of a wonderful man who was captain and chief of detectives on the Alhambra, California Police Department, and at a young age, he taught my brother and me how to have courage and always do the right thing, and I'm a hell of a good shot, by the way. Not too many victims have self defense training and are able to survive a quarter of a century of murderers wanting to take them out because they're trying to bring justice.

I respectfully ask you to please place yourself in the position that many of us have been forced to endure and then, only then, only then, will you understand the best steps to take to provide for better safety for our citizens. And I thank you for allowing me to sit up here and slobber all over myself, and I guess it's because I flew most of the night, and I'm really tired, but I wanted to be here because I never want other people to have to endure what some of us have gone through. Thank you, senators.

SEN. LEAHY: Well, Ms. Campbell, you've, I'm glad you took that flight. I'm sorry for what you endured before that. You have four former prosecutors on this panel --

MS. CAMPBELL: I know that.

SEN. LEAHY: Senator Sessions, myself, Senator Klobuchar, Senator Whitehouse. The things you've described should never happen to any victim. The crime shouldn't have happened in the first place. The delays and everything else after that never should have happened. We're trying, in every way possible, to get the resources, the training, the steps so that won't.

Ms. Burke has in her own, with the law in Rhode Island. I mean, these are, well, I think, in the murder cases that I've prosecuted, 75 to 80 percent of them, had steps been taken earlier, they would have been avoided. There's nothing more tragic than being at a murder scene at 3:00 in the morning, blue lights flashing, people sobbing, and to have the "if only" or the "what if" or the other things, and so thank you for what you've said here. You've put a human face on what so many of us have seen in the past. Thank you.

Sally Wells is the chief assistant of the Maricopa County Attorney in Phoenix. She helps oversee an office of more than 350 attorneys, more than 900 support staff, supervises the operation of civil and prosecution divisions within the office, has been an attorney in Maricopa County for 23 years. She got her bachelor's degree from the University of Virginia, her law degree from Arizona State University.

Ms. Wells, please go ahead.

MS. WELLS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee.

Thank you very much for allowing me the opportunity to present the views of the Maricopa County Attorney's office, concerning the continued importance of the Violence Against Women Act, and more specifically about the value of mandatory minimum sentencing for sexual assault and sexual abuse, as well as prompt DNA and HIV testing in cases of sexual assault and sexual abuse.

The Maricopa County Attorney's office is located in Phoenix, Arizona, and as you said, it employs more than 350 lawyers, prosecutors, who prosecute more than 40,000 felonies a year. As a 23- year veteran of the office, and as chief assistant, I've prosecuted domestic violence cases, sexual abuse cases, and I currently oversee the specialized bureau to focus on prosecuting those crimes.

Sexual violence causes lasting trauma to victims beyond physical injury. In many cases, these crimes go unreported due to the fear and trauma associated with sexual violence. Fear of retaliation from the offender, and fear of public scrutiny. In our experience, it's not uncommon for a sexual offender who is finally caught to admit to other sexual assaults that were never reported. In a 2004 statewide study at Arizona, it was estimated that only 16 percent of all sexual assaults ever came to the attention of law enforcement.

With respect to the fear of public scrutiny, the value of education cannot be underestimated. The dissemination of accurate information about sexual offenders and their victims is essential to change public attitudes about these crimes, so that victims don't suffer embarrassment or humiliation when they report sexual abuse. One message that should be clear in any statutory scheme, and it should be part of any educational effort, is that sexual violence is one of the most serious of crimes. The punishment associated with sexual violence should be commensurate with the damage that it inflicts. A mandatory minimum sentence of incarceration does send that message.

With respect to the fear of retaliation, victims suffering the physical and emotional trauma of sexual abuse and sexual assault need to know that they're safe from the person who hurt them. They need a time to heal. For at least some period of time, victims need to know that the offender cannot return to inflict more pain or punish them for reporting a crime to authorities. A mandatory minimum sentence of incarceration sends that message. Arizona's statutory scheme does send that message.

Sexual assault is a class 2 felony. It's the second highest felony. A person who is convicted of sexual assault in Arizona is not eligible for probation. A person convicted of sexual assault is exposed to a presumptive sentence of seven years in prison.

If mitigating factors exist, the sentence may be reduced to a minimum of 5.25 years in prison, and if aggravating factors are found, the sentence may be increased to 14 years in prison.

In every case, a victim may expect the offender to be in prison for at least five years. And that five year window of safety not only encourages reporting and participating in court proceedings, it also gives the victim time to heal without fear of retaliation. In 2005, Arizona moved away from classifying sexual assault of the spouse as a lesser crime than sexual assault. As part of that debate, I was asked by the legislature to provide some information about the effects such a change might have on reporting. Some of our legislators were concerned that the higher penalties associated with sexual assault might discourage reporting.

In looking at the past reported cases, the crime of sexual assault of a spouse was often accompanied by more serious offenses like kidnapping, which is a class 2 felony, or aggravated assault, a class 3 felony. The belief that a lower penalty would encourage reporting for sexual assault of a spouse or, if you want, that a higher penalty would discourage reporting, was not supported by the evidence. Another important component in dealing with crimes of sexual assault and sexual abuse is biological testing.

Along with the need to know that they are safe from any diseases that offenders may have transmitted to them, they need the assurance that they're safe from those diseases. There are several arguments for early biological testing of suspects, and although I'm not medical expert, prosecutors generally accept that if a victim reports significant exposure during a sexual assault within 72 hours of the assault, doctors can prescribe a 28-day regimen that will help the victim and help prevent the contraction of HIV. The sooner this regimen is begun, the more effective it is.

The medication to prevent HIV infection is expensive, and it may cause serious side effects. Victims who do not know whether the attacker had HIV are forced to choose between the risk of HIV infection, or the risk of the side effects associated with the prophylactic treatment. Those side effects could include liver enlargement or bone marrow suppression. Information from prompt offender testing would alleviate the uncertainty in making that choice. Information that the offender did not have HIV would allow the victim to feel safe and begin to heal.

In addition to biological testing to ensure the safety of the victim, another kind of testing plays a vital role in the investigation and prosecution of these crimes. DNA testing of a suspect ensures the suspects are identified as early as possible. As I mentioned before, many sexual assaults by the same suspects go unreported. Others are reported but the suspects are unknown. Sexual offenses are often repetitive crimes. The ability to link these crimes to specific individuals early and to specific geographic areas helps law enforcement put an end to serial offenses sooner.

Sexual offenders are often linked to other types of crimes, like burglary, criminal trespass or other types of felonies. DNA evidence is important to create an accurate criminal history for suspects. It also eliminates suspects so that law enforcement resources are not wasted. DNA sampling and testing also brings relief to victims who have lived for years --

SEN. LEAHY: Ms. Wells, Ms. Wells, I'm sorry to interrupt, but we'll put the rest of your statement in the record. There's going to be a roll call vote very soon, and I'm trying to make sure that we all have a chance for questions. Incidentally, when you were talking about the HIV testing, you probably noticed Senator Sessions and I whispering to each other.

This is something we both strongly believe in, as far as for not only for being able to go on the regime of medication that you talked about, but to be able to avoid if, it it's unnecessary and for the peace of mind. Lord knows, there's enough things that are going through a victim's mind to begin with, but that's one that might be eliminated.

Ms. Union, your story, and I'm sure it's painful to tell, but it has an effect and should be heard. Go into a little bit more about what you said in your statement that, fortunately, you were in a community that could afford to do the right things. How important is that? Not just the things that might help catch the perpetrator, but I think you were referring also to counseling that goes along with it. Do you want to elaborate on that a little bit please?

MS. UNION: Oh, definitely. The main difference in a wealthy community, like the one I was raised in, is that the system kicks in immediately. The Rape Crisis Center is well staffed, so that means whether it was me or someone who speaks Spanish, or Tagala, or Cantonese or Mandarin, there would have been somewhere there who could have translated, which is different if you're in an ethnic enclave community where that rape crisis center might not have a translator.

Rural communities also suffer from the same sort of thing. Crimes that happen on Native American reservations, urban communities, they don't have the same access to translators, to therapists, to counselors. A lot of states don't even offer free HIV and STD testing. You know, in our community, that was covered. As much as I would love to test all the suspects, probably a little bit more concerned about the victims, so I would rather prioritize that money to offer free testing for HJIV and STDs for victims immediately. That's what happened to me, but I was also raped in a very wealthy community that could afford to do that.

It's those kinds of differences that took me from rape victim to rape survivor, and I was able to be an active participant in the criminal justice system that allowed me to help apprehend the suspect in a timely fashion. It wasn't within 48 hours, so that wouldn't have really helped in my case, but in a timely fashion, it helped get him off the streets and without that funding for rape crisis centers in all communities, you sort of create a parallel universe of justice where only a few, specifically people who are raped in wealthier communities, are going to get the justice and the treatment.

So it's great to have somebody behind bars, but if you can't get on your path of recovery and reclaiming your dignity and your integrity and getting your mental health issues in check, you've been left as a shell of a person, and it's incredibly important to have those rape crisis centers well staffed and well funded and properly trained.

SEN. LEAHY: Well, let me follow that to Ms. Tronsgard-Scott. I live in a town of 1500 people. I mean, it's grown up. I live on a dirt road. My nearest neighbor's a half a mile away. Not unusual in parts of Vermont, not unusual in parts of California. I mean, rural California can make rural Vermont look like an urban area.

What about those areas? I mean, something happens in a very small town in Vermont or a very small town in California. What is available? I would assume not what Ms. Union had available to her.

MS. TRONSGARD-SCOTT: Well, I would think that's a very accurate description of rural Vermont, and probably rural areas throughout the country, Chairman Leahy, that the reality of being a victim of domestic violence or sexual assault in a rural area is that help is sometimes miles and miles away. There are certainly barriers to finding transportation.

Also, in Vermont, our rural communities are small communities and one of the things we love about living in a small community is that it's very tightly knit. People know each other. They are often related to each other, but this also can create a situation where victims feel that they can't come forward because of the relationships that they have with the people living around them. I've talked to many victims who have been living in rural communities, in both Vermont and in Ohio, where the law enforcement person in their town was actually the brother of their perpetrator, and so there are real problems for victims living in rural areas, because of the very nature of the towns and outlying areas where they live.

The other factor is that in domestic violence, in particular, victims are often isolated by their perpetrators in many ways. They're isolated socially, from their families and their friends. They're isolated economically from jobs and access to family assets. But in rural areas, they're isolated geographically. They may live in very, very rural circumstances. I've certainly had the experience of visiting victims of domestic violence and driven through creeks to get to the place where I was meeting them. So rural conditions are incredibly difficult for victims and offer, the challenges are huge.

SEN. LEAHY: Thank you. My time is up, but I'd say, Ms. Burke, the Lindsay Ann Burke Act, I agree with Senator Whitehouse. It's a great achievement. The education is necessary.

MS. BURKE: Thank you, Senator. I appreciate that.

SEN. LEAHY: I know it would have been very easy to just, you and your husband just say, that's it, we've had a tragedy, we're shutting off the rest of the world. But instead, you're helping people. And Ms. Campbell, you were married in 1951, and I was married in 1962, so that doesn't seem that long ago any more, but I also want to applaud the bravery of both you and your husband. Again, these are all things where it'd be so easy to just run away and not refer to them anymore. Instead, you've been very helpful to this committee, and that's extremely important and --

MS. CAMPBELL: Senator, I appreciate your thoughtfulness and your kindness. It means a lot.

SEN. LEAHY: Well --

MS. CAMPBELL: You're very special. You always have been.

SEN. LEAHY: Thank you very much. And Ms. Wells, thank you for being here. I want to turn over the questioning to Senator Sessions. I'm going to turn the gavel over to Senator Klobuchar.

SEN. JEFF SESSIONS (R-AL): Ms. Wells, Ms. Campbell had described individuals, murderers, who had previous records that she rightly believes should have been in jail and not able to commit these kind of crimes again. Let's pursue that a little bit. You're a professional and you've been at this a long time, and I've come to believe that mathematics is a factor in all of this, that there are just not that many people that sexually assault women, and that there's a certain number of those who are repeat offenders who are exceedingly dangerous. Just from a purely public safety point of view, is it important we identify those persons early and that they be incarcerated in order to protect the people of this country from this kind of violence?

MS. WELLS: Well, Senator, you've said it as well as I could say it. Yes, that is critical. If we, and there are a lot of studies already that are helping us to identify those persons, and as soon as we can identify them, then our goal should be to incarcerate them for as long as possible because --

SEN. SESSIONS: Now you represent a very sophisticated department, you've been at this a long time, you've personally tried these kind of cases, so I know you're really an expert in it. Do you think that there are other departments, though, district attorney offices, young prosecutors, maybe young police officers, who deal with one of these cases and are not aware sufficiently to identify a person who may be a highly dangerous offender that needs to be given as long a sentence as appropriate under the law? Do you think we're missing some people in that, and that's causing additional crimes that could have been avoided?

MS. WELLS: I do and I agree with one of my colleagues who said there's a new generation of police officers and prosecutors coming who haven't had the education that I have, and it's important to keep the continuity of that education and to keep doing the studies that help us identify those offenders. And, of course, I believe that DNA testing is one of the tools we have to identify people early.

SEN. SESSIONS: Tell me about the DNA. How, in a sexual assault case, how important is it that DNA be determined and maintained for potential future use? How does that work to solve crimes and prevent crimes?

MS. WELLS: Well, anyone who watches television knows, DNA is a very useful tool in identifying suspects and it can be preserved for a long time. Arizona recently passed legislation that requires DNA evidence to be held for at least 35 years, and that legislation was introduced by victim groups because, as we heard today, many sexual assaults aren't reported, or they're reported much later than they occurred, and the offenders may not be identified for many, many years.

But the closure, the ability to find out who the culprit was, who the offender was, and to find out maybe that they in prison somewhere else, because they've been doing this over the course of their offender career, if you want to call it that, is very important to victims.

SEN. SESSIONS: Well, I see, Ms. Union, the person that assaulted you, sexually assaulted a person later that same day. Is that correct?

MS. UNION: No, a couple of days later.

SEN. SESSIONS: A couple of days later. So if you had, if you didn't identify that person, the DNA they obtained immediately, the investigators would know it's the same rapist. Is that correct?

MS. UNION: That's correct.

SEN. SESSIONS: And if they'd had a previous arrest for rape and you had that on record, you would know exactly who that person was.

MS. UNION: That's correct. And as we heard today as well, it's important to have data bases so that law enforcement agencies in different jurisdictions can identify a single offender who goes --

SEN. SESSIONS: What is your opinion, Ms. Wells, on what other departments are doing with regard to maintaining DNA around the country? Do you have any idea how well other departments are maintaining DNA in these type of sexual assault cases?

MS. WELLS: I do think more and more states are passing legislation to make sure DNA is collected early. It's collected from a broader range of suspects, not just suspects who commit sexual crimes. There are a number of crimes that seem to be precursors or associated with sexual crimes, like burglary, petty theft, other kinds of felonies like that. Many states are expanding their DNA testing to those offenders as well so that, like I said, if we can identify them early and stop even one sexual assault, it's worth it.

SEN. SESSIONS: I couldn't agree more. Ms. Campbell, thank you for your testimony. Ms. Burke, thank you for your work. I wish we had more time to talk about it, but I think you're touching on an extremely important societal problem that we face, and I'm glad that you're showing that leadership. And all of you, thank you for speaking up and being effective on these issues. And we have had, Ms. Campbell, you were part of the movement of victims' rights, and it has really changed the law enforcement mechanism.

I think that's one reason murders are down substantially from what they were in the 1980s, when you lost your family members, and I do warn, however, that I sense about a movement that's beginning to go soft on the lessons we learned, and it is simply this: Certain people are dangerous. Just the fact that they attack one person is very indicative that they may attack another one, and we do have to maintain tough sentences. I wish it weren't so, but we have to, for certain dangerous offenders.

Thank you, Madame Chairman, and it's a pleasure to work with you.

SEN. AMY KLOBUCHAR (D-MN): Well, thank you very much.

SEN. SESSIONS: And I've also enjoyed your great leadership on our delegation to Canada with the United States Canadian Inter- parliamentary. It was a fabulous group and you did a great job as our leader.

SEN. KLOBUCHAR: Thank you. You did pretty well singing with the fiddler, Senator Sessions (laughter). I won't reveal that more.

SEN. SESSIONS: Good.

SEN. KLOBUCHAR: It was a lot of negotiations with Canada.

Senator Whitehouse.

SEN. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE (D-RI): Thank you, Chairman.

Ms. Burke, you've done such good work in this area. As we look to Rhode Island as a potential national model here, what further feedback would you give us on what elements of the Lindsay Ann Burke programs have been best received, have been most effective? What are the lessons learned from what you've done that you think Congress should focus on?

MS. BURKE: I think the lessons learned have been the need for funding.

The implementation of the law is working in Rhode Island mostly because our organization and the Rhode Island Coalition Against Domestic Violence from even before we had the law passed, stepped up the plate and said that we would be willing to provide free training for school staff, so that there was no funding attached to the bill when it was passed in Rhode Island. However, the drawback in other states is that what we're finding is that many states have good intentions, but they're very concerned, especially in these hard economic times, about the cost of training school personnel.

In fact, I've gotten calls even this week, from the State of Ohio, from New Mexico, asking how we implemented Lindsay's Law, what were the specifics and what was the cost involved? I think for it to be successfully implemented in other states, we have to have funding. There's no way of getting around that. I also believe very strongly as an educator that we need to pass Lindsay's Law, maintaining all the components of the law.

It would be a very severe drawback to educate the students and not have the staff educated at the same time, and also I think that we wouldn't want to leave our parents out of that equation, either. I think that you need to educate all three at the same time. I don't think it takes a great deal of funding, not as much as perhaps most people would imagine, because once your staff is educated and your health teachers, or whatever teachers are designated in other states, not all states require health education, but whatever teachers are designated in other states to be the primary teachers of the students, once you have that training done, it only has to be done sporadically for new hires, and that even can be incorporated at the college level, in the college education programs for student teachers.

SEN. WHITEHOUSE: You at least want enough funding for the program to be persistent

MS. WELLS: Persistent.

SEN. WHITEHOUSE: Through the years.

MS. WELLS: Correct. I think initially, you probably need a substantial amount of funding and after that, in time, that number should drop down so that it could just be maintained. I've seen firsthand the success. Two of my own former students have come back to me at different times, one who went on to a private high school, and one who went on to our public high school, and after learning about it in middle school, they did find themselves in those types of situations, due to the nature of an abusive relationship.

They weren't aware at the beginning. In one case, the student themselves, after awhile, recognized the warning signs, and was able to get herself out. In the other case, it was the friends who also had the educational piece in eighth grade who recognized the signs, and they worked with their friend to get them out. I know the education works. There's no doubt in my mind, and I think that all students have a right to that education.

I think to deprive them of that education is simply wrong. We can save lives. I think that, I was talking to Catherine Pierce last evening, I think it's even going to be difficult to measure how many lives we're saving. Many people won't come forward and tell us. Long after they graduate, they're learning, when we teach this education, we're teaching them life skills. It's no different than anything else that we teach in health class. We teach them about heart disease prevention. The chances of them becoming involved in an abusive relationship in high school is far greater than them developing heart disease in high school.

SEN. WHITEHOUSE: Yeah. Well, thank you for what you've done. I recall in 1999, I think it was, when I was attorney general, my juvenile justice task force, did a film in high school and distributed it to all the high schools and all the police departments. But that program didn't meet the test of persistence, so I'll take that lesson from you today, but --

MS. WELLS: That's exact, I was talking to Rellie (sp), and I was trying to find that tape to see if we could duplicate it and hand it out to all of our schools again.

SEN. WHITEHOUSE: Yeah. One very quick question, in my last seconds, for Ms. Wells.

SEN. KLOBUCHAR: You can take your time, Senator Whitehouse.

SEN. WHITEHOUSE: Thank you, Chairman. When it comes to testing suspected perpetrators of sexual assault and obtaining DNA samples, what level of suspicion do you recommend be reached before the testing can take place? Do you require full probable cause, or more of a sort of clearly articulable suspicion terry stop standard? At what point would it be appropriate to require DNA testing in the spectrum of suspicion from, "We have no idea, round up the usual suspects," to "We have a victim who has identified who their perpetrator was and we know who it is." There's a wide band of suspicion. At what point should this kick in?

MS. WELLS: In our state, and I agree with this, the standard is probable cause, and that's the same standard that police use when they make an arrest.

SEN. WHITEHOUSE: An arrest.

MS. WELLS: And we also have a statue that allows DNA testing for certain crimes, not every crime, upon arrest or charging by a prosecutor, and --

SEN. WHITEHOUSE: So again, do a probable cause standard.

MS. WELLS: Yes, there is at least probable cause that the offender did commit the offense.

SEN. WHITEHOUSE: And that's adequate for your purposes?

MS. WELLS: I believe that's a fair balance.

SEN. WHITEHOUSE: Very good.

Thank you, Chairman. Thank you. This is a wonderful panel of witnesses, I have to say.

SEN. KLOBUCHAR: All right. Thank you.

And I just wanted to also give my thanks to the courage, for you, Ms. Union and just the way you told that story. It's so clear, you're now a survivor, and how you told it.

And Ms. Burke, for the great work you're doing.

And Ms. Campbell, I know your husband was proud of you when he watched you. So, you know, you just showed him. I wouldn't worry about that at all.

MS. CAMPBELL: Thank you anyway.

SEN. KLOBUCHAR: Thank you for your work.

I wanted to follow up on s a few things that some of the other senators asked. The first was for Ms. Wells, when my colleague, Senator Sessions, was asking about DNA, which is so incredibly important right now. One of the things that I've found recently in the last ten years, we call it the CSI effect, that juries are actually expecting to have DNA. And sometimes, you may have a sexual assault that doesn't have DNA or you may have a domestic abuse case that most likely may not have DNA, and we actually lost a case or two, some smaller cases, because the jurors actually said later, "Well, why wasn't there DNA?"

They agreed with the defense lawyer on this and so that's when we got the right to rebuttal, actually, and our state was the last one where the prosecutors had the last word, and we got that changed. But do you want to comment on that, just evidentiary changes that have allowed it? I know one of the big issues a few years back was allowing us to go forward with domestic abuse cases when the victim wouldn't even testify, because we had other evidence from the scene, and just what you've seen in the development of either laws or evidentiary techniques, technologies, to help with those cases, where you don't have DNA?

MS. WELLS: You're absolutely correct. Juries expect some kind of forensic evidence, and especially DNA in cases of sexual assault.

In fact, that's probably the crime where the CSI effect is really --

SEN. KLOBUCHAR: Just to define this, the CSI effect for everyone, is that juries expect this and if they don't have it, they may think that the person's not guilty.

MS. WELLS: That's correct. They think that there is a new threshold now. In the old days, we could present a witness who would identify the defendant. There was no DNA and we were able to obtain convictions for sexual assault. Now, and in our state, jurors are allowed to ask questions during the trial. We get pages of questions. Was DNA done? Why wasn't it done? And sometimes, because DNA is a complex chemical analysis, the questions get very detailed, and some jurors ask very, very complex medical questions during the trial of a sexual assault case.

So, it is very important, though, to not lose sight of the fact that if you don't have DNA, you still have to fall back on all the things we learned when we prosecuted sexual assaults before. Interview as many people as possible. It's very useful to tape record interviews. It's very useful to get other kinds of evidence that corroborate what the victim has to say.

Even if you do get DNA, you shouldn't stop there. You should continue to get all of that evidence, because you don't know. Maybe the DNA won't be admissible later on. But it is, it's still critical to investigate these crimes as thoroughly as possible.

SEN. KLOBUCHAR: Um-hum. Thank you.

Ms. Tronsgard-Scott, one of the things you talked about was kids at the scene and kids living in the home, and I remember the statistic I always used to use was that a kid growing in a violent home where there was domestic abuse was something like 76 times more likely to commit crimes themselves. In fact, we had a picture in our office when you came in of a woman with a band-aid on her nose, holding a baby and it said, "Beat your wife and it's your son who will go to jail."

Do you want to talk about any advances that have been made? I know that there's been more interaction with child protection, bringing them in, so that kids get help when they live in a home, and also, obviously kids can be witnesses, too, and what's been happening with that, and as we look at the VAWA re-authorization, we should be looking at this aspect of it as well.

MS. TRONSGARD-SCOTT: Thank you, Senator. Thanks for the opportunity to talk about children living in violent homes. I agree with you. Kids are at particular risk. The statistics that I use is that kids living in violent homes are 300 times more likely to be abused themselves, which I think is incredibly distressing. So kids growing up in violent homes not only are more likely to commit violent crimes as adults, but it's likely that they themselves have been abused.

And of course, from my belief systems, a child that's witnessing domestic violence is suffering from abuse. So there have been great strides made. And I can talk about Vermont, and in Vermont, I'm, of course, very proud of Vermont and the work we've done, working with children. Our rural grant in Vermont, as I referred to in my testimony, has created the opportunity for us to create a unique and innovative relationship with our children's protective services division of our state government.

And that, what we did was we were able to provide intensive training for child abuse investigators in that unit. And so now they are experts at working with victims of domestic violence and their kids. In many cases, victims of domestic violence in the past were almost held accountable for the abuse that their children were suffering at the hands of their abusers. But in Vermont, this innovative program allows investigators to go in and do an investigation, and instead of blaming the victim for the abuse that the kids are suffering, they work with the victim to be able to provide them with the supports that they need to be able to make choices about living in a safe, peace-filled home.

SEN. KLOBUCHAR: Okay. Very good.

Ms. Union, you did such a good job of talking about, you said it so directly, how the fact that you had been raped in an area that had the resources, and that very much resonated with me because I've just seen that in smaller counties that don't have the resources. They just might not have the expertise sometimes in cases, or you have, like you said, the rape crisis center that doesn't have the resources in some areas.

I brought up earlier with Ms. Pierce that issue of the rape kits and I just wondered, for anyone that has knowledge about that, that is what we've been hearing, that there have been efforts to make victims pay for them, or they are paying for them or they pay for them and then they have to be paid back by the state. Any comments on that?

MS. UNION: Yeah, we've been having this discussion for the last few years. And I live in California, and there's a backlog, and I work very closely with the UCLA Rape Crisis Centers, and as a rape survivor myself, I had, basically when your DNA is collected, your rape kit is collected and it's stuck in a brown bag and it goes and it sits on a counter. And when I go to the UCLA Rape Crisis Center, I just see the line of brown bags. That's children, women, men, everyone has, you become this brown bag. And I know that --

SEN. KLOBUCHAR: And this is DNA that could connect people --

MS. UNION: Oh, yeah.

SEN. KLOBUCHAR: To a crime and identify a perpetrator.

MS. UNION: Oh, yes. And you know, after working in this business, everyone who deals with rape and domestic violence, you realize that there is a priority that is placed on certain brown bags. And they call them sexy victims. And the victims that, generally a sexy victim is a white woman, preferably young, preferably formally educated, ideally, if they're attractive, even better, cases that can get media attention, and are slam-dunked.

But if you're not a sexy victim, that includes African-Americans, Latinos, basically anybody who's not a young, white, educated, attractive woman, is not deemed a sexy victim, and those cases are the ones that make up the bulk of the backlog cases. And just, it's so transparent, and when you sit there and you see the row of these brown bags, it breaks your heart.

And, like I said, when I talk to rape victims in the United States, I have to give them the same spiel because the likelihood of justice and, that you think you're going to get because you watch CSI, "Well they took my DNA and I was sort of re-victimized again by having to do the rape kit, so, after, you know, my rapist is going to be apprehended and I'm going to get justice and I can get on the path of recovery." And it just doesn't work like that for the majority of people, and when you start to prioritize certain people, we create a parallel universe of justice and that has to stop.

SEN. KLOBUCHAR: Right. To end here, I notice that, and thank you for that point and as we look at this re-authorization and the tools we need in the criminal justice system, I think sometimes laws and funding were set back at a time before we had this extent of the technology we have and some of the state laws that we have now, and so that's why it's just an opportunity to look at what we should be doing differently and doing better.

But I will point out, to end on a positive note here, Ms. Tronsgard-Scott, is that you said in your testimony that VAWA saved taxpayers $14.8 billion (dollar) in net averted social costs in the first six years alone. Do you want to comment about that, and where you see those savings?

MS. TRONSGARD-SCOTT: I want to say that back in 1984, when I was a young person living in Cleveland, Ohio, I lived next door to a family that was, where the husband was violent, and we had to tell the police officers that there was a burglar outside our house to get them to respond. They would not come to that house if we called the police.

And so that family was left, the victim was left, there were no supports. There was no prosecution, there was nothing. That family went on, they were a family that was poor, they used the social services system, and their lot was fairly hopeless. Today, that same family would be embraced with a social services net that would, in many ways, especially with the new economic justice work that we're doing I our movement, would not only help them maintain safety, but help them move forward in their economic goals. And so, for me, it's money well spent.

SEN. KLOBUCHAR: Thank you. Well, I think part of the successes that we've had, and with some many challenges ahead, as Ms. Union pointed out, but the successes are a tribute to all of you and the way this movement has developed, with, on the grassroots level with victims saying, "I'm not going to take it anymore," and being willing to come forward and speak.

So I want to thank you all for that. We're looking forward as a committee to working on this. As you can see, it's a bipartisan effort, strongly supported by both sides of the aisle. So I just want to thank you and wish you well, and your courage is unbelievable and it's going to make a difference. Thank you very much.

This hearing is adjourned.

END.

Source